Curtis v. State

Missouri Court of Appeals

Curtis v. State

579 S.W.2d 824

CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

DecidedApril 2, 1979

DocketNo. KCD 29908

StatusPublished

This text of 579 S.W.2d 824 (Curtis v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Curtis v. State, 579 S.W.2d 824 (Mo. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

TURNAGE, Judge.

Perry Curtis appeals the denial of his 27.26 motion. The court held an evidentia-ry hearing and made findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Curtis entered a plea of guilty to armed robbery under § 560.120, RSMo 1969, while represented by counsel. On this appeal he essentially contends the plea was involuntary because his counsel had led him to believe he would receive probation when in fact he did not. Curtis on this motion testified to his understanding about probation and his counsel testified no representation about probation was made. The court found no representation had been made. On the evidence presented the court was required to resolve the conflict in evidence and to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Nance v. State, 556 S.W.2d 193, 194[2, 3] (Mo.App.1977). In doing this the court was entitled to believe counsel who stated no promise had been made prior to the plea.

The court’s finding of fact is not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

TURNAGE, Judge.

Perry Curtis appeals the denial of his 27.26 motion. The court held an evidentia-ry hearing and made findings of fact and conclusions of law.

Curtis entered a plea of guilty to armed robbery under § 560.120, RSMo 1969, while represented by counsel. On this appeal he essentially contends the plea was involuntary because his counsel had led him to believe he would receive probation when in fact he did not. Curtis on this motion testified to his understanding about probation and his counsel testified no representation about probation was made. The court found no representation had been made. On the evidence presented the court was required to resolve the conflict in evidence and to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Nance v. State, 556 S.W.2d 193, 194[2, 3] (Mo.App.1977). In doing this the court was entitled to believe counsel who stated no promise had been made prior to the plea.

The court’s finding of fact is not clearly erroneous and an extended opinion would have no precedential value. Rule 84.16(b).

The judgment is affirmed.

All concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 S.W.2d 824, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-state-moctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack